G.R. No. L-14319; May 26, 1960
EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA, petitioner-appellant, vs. SUSANO R. NEGADO, as General Manager of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority and the NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Eduardo G. Bautista was an employee of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NWSA), holding the position of timekeeper-capataz in its Construction Division, Engineering Department. On November 11, 1957, a sworn statement was filed by Turiano A. Alonzo with the NWSA General Manager, alleging that on September 6, 1957, he gave Bautista the amount of P10,000 on the understanding that Bautista would have Alonzo’s house connected to the NWSA water main, but the connection had not been installed. The General Manager notified Bautista of the statement and gave him 72 hours to submit a detailed answer. In his answer, Bautista moved to dismiss the case, contending the transaction was purely private and unofficial, having no relation to his official duties, and thus could not be the subject of an administrative investigation. His motion was denied, and the case was set for formal investigation. Bautista then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila to prevent the respondents from conducting the investigation. The lower court, after respondents filed a motion to dismiss, granted the motion, holding that the respondents, as employers, had the right to investigate acts of the petitioner related to the business of the NWSA, irrespective of a direct bearing on his official duties. Bautista appealed the order of dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondents (the NWSA and its General Manager) have the power and jurisdiction to administratively investigate the petitioner-appellant for acts alleged to be private and unofficial, having no connection with his official duties.

RULING

Yes, the respondents have the power and jurisdiction to conduct the administrative investigation. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order of dismissal.
The Court held that the petitioner’s position as timekeeper-capataz was subject to civil service rules under Section 6 of Republic Act 1383 (the NWSA Charter), as it was not policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical. The act imputed to him—receiving a cash payment with a promise to install a water service connection, which he was unauthorized to do according to a certification from the NWSA Service Department—constituted dishonesty.
Citing the case of Nera vs. Garcia and interpreting Section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code in conjunction with Section 34 of Republic Act No. 2260 (the Civil Service Act of 1959), the Court ruled that dishonesty (as well as oppression or grave misconduct) by a civil service employee need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty to warrant administrative investigation and punishment. The legislative intent, clarified by the later law, is that only “neglect” must be “in the performance of duty” to justify action, whereas dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct need have no relation to official duties. The government cannot tolerate a dishonest official in its service because such character defects affect the right to continue in office, the discipline and morale of the service, and the public’s faith in the government, regardless of whether the dishonesty is connected to the office.
Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner’s misdeed was not entirely disconnected from the NWSA’s business, as he appeared to have capitalized on his being an NWSA employee. The investigation was also in the public interest under Section 695 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court also noted that a formal complaint was not a prerequisite for an administrative investigation, as such proceedings could be initiated motu proprio by the head of office or upon a sworn statement.
The order of dismissal was affirmed, with costs against the petitioner-appellant.